wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 9:45am
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
KØHB wrote:

One self-proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL", who isn't even a ham and
doesn't intend to be one, sends them hundreds of pages of comments and
reply comments, which they have to wade through.

"Self-proclaimed?"

Yes.

No, according to several corporations,
the IRS, the Franchise Tax Board of California, DCAS, and
the professional association known as the IEEE have all
said I was a professional...professional as in accepting
monetary compensation for work performed. :-)

They said you were a professional, Len. You proclaim yourself to be a
PROFESSIONAL.

No way. The FCC staffers who deal with these things don't live in a
vacuum, they're not stupid and they know bull**** when it lands in
their inboxes and they know how to handle it. By now they've long since
gotten wise to Anderson's childish antics and his "comments" just get
rubber-stamped "READ" and tossed into the outbox without further ado.

Really?!? :-)

Ya, rly! ;-) ;-)

Kelly is now an "insider" at the FCC? :-)

No more than you are, Len. And no less.

No, sweetums, what you wrote is what YOU want to believe
happens. Just because you WANT something doesn't mean it
is true. :-)

Let's remember that phrase.....

He's not having any impact at all at the FCC and he knows it, he's
trolling for folk like you who get their knickers in a twist over his
nonsense.

Poor baby, still hurting over past go-arounds in RRAP?

"what you wrote is what YOU want to believe happens.
Just because you WANT something doesn't mean it is true. :-)"

- Leonard H. Anderson

"Impact" is a very subjective word. What you really
want is to "impact" me with some heavy blunt object. :-)

That's *your* solution, Len.

Unfortunately, Kelly isn't able to get what he wants so
HE trolls with nastygrams on his perceived "enemies."

Are you his friend?

The FCC is supposed to accept input from *ALL* citizens.

Of course. Has any of your input been rejected?

"Accept" doesn't mean "agree with" or "act on".

That doesn't mean it accepts input only from special-
interest groups such as the ARRL in regards to amateur
radio. Nor is that input limited to radio manufacturers
whether their offices are in the USA or on foreign soil.

You're a special interest group, Len. A group of one ;-)

Since you don't seem to have observed any OTHER radio
services' on-going agendas, you would be surprised at
the number of individual citizen inputs the FCC DOES
receive. Spend some time on those other issues, old-
timer, get some better education on what the FCC gets
(and must show to the rest of the public).

All they have to do is accept the stuff and put it on the website.
Doesn't mean they take you seriously, Len.

Besides, it was *you* who gave W3RV the idea about how FCC treats your
"input".

Remember this?:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...6?dmode=source

Some quotes:

"In 1951 there was no Internet, no easy way to "talk" to the FCC except
through legal outfits and lobbying organizations all using the "proper"
format in their paperwork. Everything was surface mail if you couldn't
afford special couriers. The League could afford a legal firm then and
they filed nice legalese documents with the Commission. With a relative
scarcity of correspondence incoming they could pay attention to the
League then. The League enjoyed a high place on amateur regulation
correspondence with the FCC then. Any individual writing longhand,
without legal terms or in any "approved" format got chuckled at."

You weren't at FCC then or now, but you claim to know how FCC reacted
to "input" back then.

"Things were more "patrician" then. Things are a bit different now."

How do you know for sure they're not chuckling at - or groaning over -
your "input"?

"Internet access to ALL government is faster than overnight express
mail. FCC has to accept ALL filings. By law."

That was true in 1951 as well as today.

Besides, "accept" doesn't mean "take seriously",

"The correspondence on hot- ticket Dockets is enormous compared to more
than a half century ago. ALL radio has increased in scope and the FCC
is stuck with having to regulate an enormous set of radio services
affecting millions and millions more than existed in 1951."

All the more reason for them to sort out the comments worth reading....

If the FCC "chuckled at" the comments of some individuals in 1951, why
wouldn't they do so today?